Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro

Pursuant to the rules of practice (§ 2-47 (d) (1)), if a respondent attorney has been disciplined at least three times in a five year period preceding the date of the filing of a grievance complaint that gives rise to a finding of current misconduct, the Statewide Grievance Committee or a reviewing committee ''shall direct the disciplinary counsel to file a presentment against the respondent in the Superior Court,'' and ''[t]he sole issue to be determined by the court upon the presentment shall be the appropriate action to take'' as a result of the nature of the respondent's current misconduct ''and the cumulative discipline issued concerning the respondent within such five year period.'' Pursuant further to the rules of practice (§ 2-47 (d) (2)), ''[i]f the respondent has appealed the issuance of a finding of misconduct made by the Statewide Grievance Committee or the reviewing committee, the court shall first adjudi- cate and decide that appeal in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (d) through (f) of [§] 2-38 [of the Practice Book].'' The respondent attorney appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed the trial court's judg- ment suspending him from the practice of law for ninety days. A 2018 grievance complaint alleging certain professional misconduct by the respon- dent was referred to a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, but hearings on the matter were postponed for nearly three years. The respondent ultimately moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that he had been denied his right to due process and prejudiced by the delay in its adjudication. Following a hearing in 2021, the reviewing commit- tee denied the respondent's motion to dismiss and found that he had engaged in certain misconduct. The reviewing committee ultimately concluded that the respondent's misconduct warranted a reprimand but that it was required by Practice Book § 2-47 (d) (1) to direct the petitioner, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, to file a presentment in the Superior Court because the respondent had been disciplined at least three other times in the five years preceding the filing of the 2018 complaint. The respondent filed a request for review with the Statewide Grievance Committee, which upheld the reviewing committee's decision. The respondent, however, did not appeal from either the decision of the reviewing committee or the Statewide Griev- ance Committee. After the petitioner filed the presentment, the trial court declined the respondent's request to consider his due process claim and, pursuant to § 2-47 (d) (1), instead limited its inquiry to the appropriate discipline to impose. In affirming the trial court's judgment, the Appellate Court concluded that the respondent's failure to appeal from the decision of the Statewide Grievance Committee or the reviewing committee pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 2-38) governing appeals from grievance decisions ''imposing sanctions or conditions'' precluded him from raising his due process claim during the presentment proceedings before the trial court. The respondent claimed, inter alia, that the Appellate Court had incorrectly concluded that he waived his due process claim by virtue of his failure to pursue a timely appeal pursuant to § 2-38. Held: This court agreed with the Appellate Court that, in cases in which the Statewide Grievance Committee or a reviewing committee designates a case for presentment pursuant to § 2-47 (d) (1), a respondent who seeks to challenge the committee's ultimate finding of misconduct or any subsidiary ruling made in connection with a misconduct finding must do so through an appeal to the Superior Court authorized by § 2-38, and § 2-47 (d) (2) requires the Superior Court to adjudicate that appeal before turning to the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate. Moreover, once the appeal period under § 2-38 lapses without action, the committee's decision, including its interlocutory rulings, is final, and the Superior Court's authority at presentment is confined under § 2-47 (d) (1) to determining ''the appropriate [disciplinary] action'' to be taken as a result of the respondent's current misconduct and cumulative disciplinary history. Nevertheless, the language and organization of §§ 2-38 and 2-47 (d) created a lack of clarity regarding the proper procedure for challenging findings of misconduct and for obtaining appellate review of constitutional claims in cases in which presentment to the Superior Court is directed pursuant to § 2-47 (d) (1), and that lack of clarity, coupled with concerns of fundamental fairness, required that this case be remanded to the trial court so that the respondent could litigate the merits of his due process claim as though he had filed a timely appeal pursuant to § 2-38 (a). Specifically, this court could not rule out the possibility that the lack of clarity in the rules of practice may have led the respondent to believe that he did not need to appeal from the decision of the Statewide Grievance Committee or the reviewing committee, and the respondent's claim impli- cated his fundamental due process rights concerning a protected prop- erty interest. There was no merit to the respondent's claim that the Appellate Court's interpretation of § 2-47 (d) (1) improperly curtailed the inherent authority of the Superior Court in disciplinary matters, as the rules of practice preserve that court's inherent authority in disciplinary matters while establishing the procedural sequence in which that authority must be exercised. Argued September 18—officially released December 23, 2025

Q: What was the primary issue in this case?

The case concerned attorney Vaccaro's alleged mishandling of client funds in his trust account and the resulting disciplinary action recommended by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel.

Q: What specific actions by Mr. Vaccaro led to the disciplinary proceedings?

Mr. Vaccaro improperly managed funds in his client trust account, which resulted in a shortage of funds, indicating a failure to adhere to professional conduct rules regarding client money.

Q: What was the recommendation of the Disciplinary Counsel?

The Disciplinary Counsel recommended a suspension of Mr. Vaccaro's law license.

Q: What was the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision?

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Vaccaro's conduct violated professional conduct rules and upheld the disciplinary action, imposing a suspension on his law license.

Q: What is the broader implication of this ruling for attorneys?

The ruling reinforces the importance of attorneys diligently and carefully managing client funds and adhering to strict ethical rules governing trust accounts, with significant consequences for violations.

Connecticut Supreme Court Opinions attorney disciplineprofessional conducttrust accountslegal ethicsmisconduct ct Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: attorney disciplineKnow Your Rights: professional conductKnow Your Rights: trust accounts Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2025 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings attorney discipline Guideprofessional conduct Guide attorney discipline Topic Hubprofessional conduct Topic Hubtrust accounts Topic Hub